WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1983
- 13 -
HE EXPLAINED THAT THE CONCEPT OF NUISANCE USED IN THE BILL, THOUGH THE SUBJECT OF PAGES OF DISCUSSION IN LEARNED LAW BOOKS, CLEARLY INVOLVED SERIOUS AND UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE.
POINTING OUT THAT THERE WERE A GREAT MANY MINOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES THAT COULD GIVE RISE TO AIR POLLUTION, HE SAID THE BASIC PRINCIPLE WAS THAT IF THE POLLUTION WAS NOT CAUSING A NUISANCE, OR A DANGER TO HEALTH OR TO AIRCRAFT, IT REALLY COULD NOT BE DOING MUCH HARM AND MIGHT BE LEFT ALONE.
HE SAID HE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY SOME MEMBERS FOUND THIS EMINENTLY COMMONSENSE APPROACH SO OBJECTIONABLE.
+THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF COMPILING A COMPENDIUM OF ABSOLUTE STANDARDS OF EVERY CONCEIVABLE FORM OF AIR POLLUTION WOULD BE FORMIDABLE. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF IT, HE ASKED.
MR BRAY SAID THAT FOR THE GENERALITY OF THIS MINOR POLLUTION WHAT MATTERS WAS NOT WHETHER SOME STANDARD OR OTHER WAS BREACHED BUT WHETHER THE POLLUTION WAS CAUSING TROUBLE TO OTHER PEOPLE.
HE ADDED THAT IT SEEMED SENSIBLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE EFFECT ON PEOPLE AND NOT SOME ABSTRUSE CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL STANDARD.
+BUT PEOPLE AND THEIR FEELINGS ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO MATHEMATICAL MEASUREMENT AND SO THE BILL AND ITS PREDECESSOR THE CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE PROCEED DELIBERATELY, HE SAID.
MR BRAY SAID INITIALLY IT WAS A PROFESSIONAL OFFICER WHOSE JUDGEMENT WAS EXERCISED IN ASSESSING WHETHER THE AIR POLLUTION WAS CAUSING A NUISANCE OR NOT. IF THERE WAS A NUISANCE HE WOULD FIRST PROCEED BY OFFERING ADVICE,
IF THE PLANT OPERATOR FAILED TO HEED ADVICE, HE EXPLAINED THAT THE AUTHORITY MAY THEN REQUIRE, BY A NOTICE, SOME ACTION BE TAKEN TO ABATE THE NUISANCE.
IN ENGLISH PRACTICE THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE A PROSECUTION IN A MAGISTRATE'S COURT. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE SUCH ARGUMENTS HEARD BEFORE AN APPEAL BOARD COMPRISING A DISTRICT JUDGE AND EXPERTS IN THE RELEVANT ENGINEERING FIELD, HE SAID.
MR BRAY DISAGREED WITH THE HON BILL BROWN THAT THE BOARD WOULD BE UNABLE TO MAKE A FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM, INCLUDING WHETHER THE INITIAL ACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WAS CORRECT.
HE EXPLAINED: IT DOES NOT TRY AN OFFENCE. IT IS CONSIDERING THE PROBLEM OF SOMEONE AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION, REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER'. THE APPEAL BOARD IS ENABLED TO CONFIRM, REVERSE OR VARY THE DECISION, REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATION APPEALED FROM".
MA BRAY SAID HE SAW NO OBJECTION TO MR BROWN'S AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THE APPEAL BOARD TO START AT THE BEGINNING TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE EVER WAS A NUISANCE AT ALL.
/HE ALSO